* Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems @ 2022-06-30 17:11 Eric D 2022-07-01 13:32 ` Jeff Hostetler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Eric D @ 2022-06-30 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git I can appreciate the concerns expressed here: https://github.com/git/git/commit/d989b266c1a7ef47f27cec75e90f3dfefbfa0200 However, in my environment, our file servers are very capable and have the requisite support. It would be great if there was an option to override this check and allow fsmonitor to operate against network filesystems. -Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems 2022-06-30 17:11 Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems Eric D @ 2022-07-01 13:32 ` Jeff Hostetler 2022-07-01 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-08-08 21:58 ` Eric D 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jeff Hostetler @ 2022-07-01 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric D, git On 6/30/22 1:11 PM, Eric D wrote: > I can appreciate the concerns expressed here: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/d989b266c1a7ef47f27cec75e90f3dfefbfa0200 > > However, in my environment, our file servers are very capable and have > the requisite support. It would be great if there was an option to > override this check and allow fsmonitor to operate against network > filesystems. Yeah, I was just being cautious. I probably should have also added concerns on the remote system being an actual Windows server or a non-Windows host running SAMBA. There were just too many combinations for me to be comfortable enabling it by default (on the initial release, at least). Also, the ReadDirectoryChangesW() API limits the buffer size to 64k for remote handles (because of protocol limitations), so there _may_ be more of an opportunity for dropped events on very busy remote file systems. (I never saw any dropped events in my testing (without intentionally breaking things), but it is a possible concern, so again, caution and safety...) And I do handle dropped events and force a resync and send the client a "trivial" response (so it must do a regular scan), so output is still correct, but slower. Having said all of that, I did do lots of testing and never had an issue with remote drives actually working correctly, so I think it'd be fine allow a config setting to optionally allow it. I just didn't want to clutter up things in advance if no one actually wanted to use it on remote file systems. I think it would be fine to have a "fsmonitor.allowRemote" or "fsmonitor.allowWindowsRemote" config setting and default them to false for now. Or until we learn which combinations of remote mounts are safe and/or problematic. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems 2022-07-01 13:32 ` Jeff Hostetler @ 2022-07-01 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-07-01 19:15 ` Eric D 2022-08-08 21:58 ` Eric D 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-07-01 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Hostetler; +Cc: Eric D, git Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> writes: > Having said all of that, I did do lots of testing and never had an > issue with remote drives actually working correctly, so I think it'd > be fine allow a config setting to optionally allow it. I just didn't > want to clutter up things in advance if no one actually wanted to > use it on remote file systems. > > I think it would be fine to have a "fsmonitor.allowRemote" or > "fsmonitor.allowWindowsRemote" config setting and default them to false > for now. Or until we learn which combinations of remote mounts are > safe and/or problematic. How about getting rid of "is this remote?" check altogether (which presumably would simplify the logic) and make it totally up to the user of the repository? fsmonitor.disableInRepository that is set in ~/.gitignore and lists the paths to the repositories (like safe.directory does), for which fsmonitor gets disabled, may be a handy mechanism to set up the default (and it can be re-enabled with per-repository core.fsmonitor). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems 2022-07-01 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-07-01 19:15 ` Eric D 2022-08-01 18:35 ` Eric D 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Eric D @ 2022-07-01 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Jeff Hostetler, git One more possibility: Leave the check, but make it a warning if there are still concerns about running fsmonitor against network file systems. Maybe also provide an option to suppress the warning? Not that much different from having "fsmonitor.allowRemote" I suppose other than by default fsmonitor would "just work" for network mounts. On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> writes: > > > Having said all of that, I did do lots of testing and never had an > > issue with remote drives actually working correctly, so I think it'd > > be fine allow a config setting to optionally allow it. I just didn't > > want to clutter up things in advance if no one actually wanted to > > use it on remote file systems. > > > > I think it would be fine to have a "fsmonitor.allowRemote" or > > "fsmonitor.allowWindowsRemote" config setting and default them to false > > for now. Or until we learn which combinations of remote mounts are > > safe and/or problematic. > > How about getting rid of "is this remote?" check altogether (which > presumably would simplify the logic) and make it totally up to the > user of the repository? fsmonitor.disableInRepository that is set > in ~/.gitignore and lists the paths to the repositories (like > safe.directory does), for which fsmonitor gets disabled, may be a > handy mechanism to set up the default (and it can be re-enabled with > per-repository core.fsmonitor). > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems 2022-07-01 19:15 ` Eric D @ 2022-08-01 18:35 ` Eric D 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Eric D @ 2022-08-01 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Jeff Hostetler, git On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 3:15 PM Eric D <eric.decosta@gmail.com> wrote: > > One more possibility: > > Leave the check, but make it a warning if there are still concerns > about running fsmonitor against network file systems. Maybe also > provide an option to suppress the warning? Not that much different > from having "fsmonitor.allowRemote" I suppose other than by default > fsmonitor would "just work" for network mounts. > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> writes: > > > > > Having said all of that, I did do lots of testing and never had an > > > issue with remote drives actually working correctly, so I think it'd > > > be fine allow a config setting to optionally allow it. I just didn't > > > want to clutter up things in advance if no one actually wanted to > > > use it on remote file systems. > > > > > > I think it would be fine to have a "fsmonitor.allowRemote" or > > > "fsmonitor.allowWindowsRemote" config setting and default them to false > > > for now. Or until we learn which combinations of remote mounts are > > > safe and/or problematic. > > > > How about getting rid of "is this remote?" check altogether (which > > presumably would simplify the logic) and make it totally up to the > > user of the repository? fsmonitor.disableInRepository that is set > > in ~/.gitignore and lists the paths to the repositories (like > > safe.directory does), for which fsmonitor gets disabled, may be a > > handy mechanism to set up the default (and it can be re-enabled with > > per-repository core.fsmonitor). > > > > After modifying the code and playing with it for a bit, I think simply removing the check (but still being able to report on it if tracing is enabled) is the way to go. Keep it simple and if new use cases arrive, deal with them then. -Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems 2022-07-01 13:32 ` Jeff Hostetler 2022-07-01 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-08-08 21:58 ` Eric D 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Eric D @ 2022-08-08 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Hostetler; +Cc: git On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 9:32 AM Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote: > > > > On 6/30/22 1:11 PM, Eric D wrote: > > I can appreciate the concerns expressed here: > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/d989b266c1a7ef47f27cec75e90f3dfefbfa0200 > > > > However, in my environment, our file servers are very capable and have > > the requisite support. It would be great if there was an option to > > override this check and allow fsmonitor to operate against network > > filesystems. > > Yeah, I was just being cautious. I probably should have also added > concerns on the remote system being an actual Windows server or a > non-Windows host running SAMBA. There were just too many combinations > for me to be comfortable enabling it by default (on the initial > release, at least). > > Also, the ReadDirectoryChangesW() API limits the buffer size to 64k > for remote handles (because of protocol limitations), so there _may_ > be more of an opportunity for dropped events on very busy remote file > systems. (I never saw any dropped events in my testing (without > intentionally breaking things), but it is a possible concern, so again, > caution and safety...) And I do handle dropped events and force a > resync and send the client a "trivial" response (so it must do a regular > scan), so output is still correct, but slower. > > > Having said all of that, I did do lots of testing and never had an > issue with remote drives actually working correctly, so I think it'd > be fine allow a config setting to optionally allow it. I just didn't > want to clutter up things in advance if no one actually wanted to > use it on remote file systems. > > > I think it would be fine to have a "fsmonitor.allowRemote" or > "fsmonitor.allowWindowsRemote" config setting and default them to false > for now. Or until we learn which combinations of remote mounts are > safe and/or problematic. > > Jeff OK, based on this and other conversations, I have implemented the following: 1. Introduced a new config setting, "fsmonitor.allowRemote" "fsmonitor.allowRemote" has a default value of false. Setting it to true overrides fsmonitor's default behavior of rejecting network-mounted repos. 2. Restricted allowing remote repos to Windows clients using SMB If the client is not using SMB and using a network path, then fsmonitor will reject the repo path regardless of the value of "fsmonitor.allowRemote" -Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-08 21:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-06-30 17:11 Option to allow fsmonitor to run against repos on network file systems Eric D 2022-07-01 13:32 ` Jeff Hostetler 2022-07-01 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-07-01 19:15 ` Eric D 2022-08-01 18:35 ` Eric D 2022-08-08 21:58 ` Eric D
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).